the eurobillies wont be to happy to hear this.

 

Many (like Bluewings) cannot grasp the fact that the SuperBug is as new as any of the ECDs

Equally unhappy would be Sukhoi, Mig Islamabad and Moscow. Especially considering Brazil too. This has massive Geopolitical as well as military implications.

 

 

-DA

I'm curious what a lot of the criteria has been in some of these latest fighter competitions,

meaning what are the shortcomings of those eurocanard types that cost them the competitions?

 

I'd almost throw Gripen into the fold, but seeing as it has more than one foreign customer in addition to home country (even if low in numbers total), I'll leave it out.

 

Is it offsets?

Or the notion of falling in better with the US (when F-16s, F-15-types, and F/A-18s are bought)?

Are the eurocanards actually that bad of designs?

Or is it crappy avionics in general,

inferior sensory capability to what the customers want,

poor choice of weapons integration,

insufficient payload to range,

or a general combination of all the factors?

 

I know we've seen  more than enough fanboy arguments on these discussions,

but without resorting to flammage,

what exactly are some of the requirements where these other aircraft types came up short?

Is there any etched-in-stone (or rather, on-paper) requirements that these other aircraft competing just didn't measure up to?

 

One would think that contractors wouldn't even offer their aircraft if they knew it didn't meet certain basic criteria of the potential customer country...

Both the Typhoon and Rafale are fine aircraft - the problems occur when they are marketed to the wrong customers. 

The Rafale is a 4th gen strike fighter but it lacks AESA and a laser designator.  It also has come out at the high end of price so - despite the advantages of the aircraft - the cost factor just kills it - e.g. the Morrocco purchase was won by the F-16 mainly due to price.  Its a clear advantage to offer a lower cost aircraft that meets the performance requirements and has a combat record with a wide variety of munitions.  Morrocco was able to purchase 36 (?) F-16s for less than 8 Rafales.  In addition, because of the low production numbers - the Rafale has a spares shortage that customers can't really deal with.

 

The Typhoon is a different case but suffers from similar problems - price is one issue.  The UK is moviing ahead by integrating a laser designator and testing with a wider array of munitions for ground attack.  However, the Typhoon was designed as a fighter first.  Thus, in the recent competitions - it lags behind strike fighters who have a track record with air to surface munitions.  In other bids where the air to air role is stressed the Typhoon has faired much better - e.g. the Saudi buy.

 

There are other factors to be sure - national politics and poor marketing (e.g. Rafale for Singapore, South Korea, Japan) but the basics - price, performance, and long term costs are driving factors for all selections.  The problem is that most aircraft makers don't seem to understand that an air force is a customer and must be treated that way.

Could the Russians continue to develop their Sukhoi series without cash paying customers to fund the projects along? Venezuela can't replace India and China as a customer, both of whom appear to be lost to the Russians for very different reasons.

 

Who else is left to buy enough of this technology to keep them financially solvent in this bid'ness (with gas at $89/barrell and falling)? How many planes does it take to keep the production lines and product development open? 250-300 over 5 years?

 

That about right?

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

Thats just it. More or less the ECD could meet the customer requirements or be made to if necessary. Performance is not really the big issue since all of these aircraft are in the same ball park from a performance point of view. The key when it comes to countries like Brazil and India is the strategic defense relationships over time. As both nations grow in power and influence in their respective regions they are going to find the need to partner with an ally who shares a common interest, one who would be unlikely to go to war against them and is able to logistically sustain them with certain and absolute reliability. Moreover, since neither Brazil or India's defense industries are self sustaining they want to learn as much as they can through cooperation and technology xfer in order to get to the point of military independence. Only the United States can offer this quite priceless relationship. Compare that to the ECD which in addition to not having as strong a defense industry or as advanced technology but actually cost more to own!

 

Its not hard to see that nations in this situation would favor a US product. Notice what aircraft are conspicuously absent. The Soviet era aircraft and their spawn. It shows a certain amount of intent with regard to who the Brazilians and Indians see themselves more strategically aligned with. And the Russians have a lot to offer in terms of technology, workshare and price.

 

 

Thats the short answer...;)

 

 

-DA

You are dead on target here - it is doubtful the Russians will fund this all by themselves and customers with this kind of cash are hard to come by these days.  The hope that India may tag along is fading because of poor performance on the other miltary contracts (e.g. carrier).  Help from China is pretty much dead because of the PLAAF and its habit of stealing Russian technology without payment (J-11B anyone?). 

 

The Russians have already shown they are more likely to dedicate limited funding toward nuclear delivery systems - Blackjack, Topol M and the Bulava - so they can remain in the super-power game.  As a result, the Russian air force has been declining in quality and quantity for quite some time and has received only limited numbers of more advanced MiG-29 and Su-27 systems.  We saw evidence of that decline in the recent invasion of Georgia where the Russian air force showed its limited capabilities and even lost aircraft such as a Backfire bomber.